Constantinople - \'New Rome\'?

[Nathan Ross]

Everyone knows that the Emperor Constantine refounded the city of Byzantium as a new capital for the empire, and that it later took the name Constantinople.

But what did Constantine himself call it? The city was dedicated in AD330, but under what name? The name Constantinople ('Constantine's city'), whether or not it was in popular use before then or not, apparently dates from after his death in 337 (it was renamed by Constantius II, according to Dodgeon and Lieu in The Roman Eastern Frontier).

The usual answer seems to be that Constantine called it 'New Rome' (Nova Roma, or Nea Roma), but there seems to be no actual evidence for that - this article calls it a 'myth'.

So was it still officially called Byzantium, until renamed in honour of the dead Constantine?

[Macedon]

Very interesting question. It is amazing how often Constantinoples is called "Nea Rome" in the Byzantine texts. It seems that they especially preferred this appellation in poetry, religious and state titles and generally in more formal circumstances. I read the article which I would call extremely lacking in its evidence and argumentation. Without being able to answer with any degree of certainty as to whether Constantine himself named the city Nea Rome or anything else, I can only say that the author of the article seems to suggest that there are only a handful of relative texts whereas there are hundreds dating as far as the 4th and 5th century AD all the way to the 14th+. One should make a very careful study of the evidence to be able to take a position.

Direct evidence I found, whose validity I will not comment on, was in Historia ecclesiastica by Salaminius Hermias Sozomenus (5th c. AD) , who writes :

"Νέαν Ῥώμην Κωνσταντινούπολιν ὠνόμασε". Now that could unfortunately have two translations "he called it (the city) New Rome Constantinoples" or "he called (the city of) Constantinoples New Rome".

Blastares (14th c. AD) writes :

"καὶ νέαν προσεπωνόμασε Ῥώμην." "and he called it New Rome"

Stephanus Byzantius (6th c. AD) also writes that Byzantion was later renamed to both Constantinoples and New Rome. "μετωνομάσθη δὲ καὶ Κωνσταντινούπολις καὶ Νέα Ῥώμη."

Theophanes Confessor (8th-9th c. AD) writes :

"Τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει κτίζων Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ εὐσεβὴς τὴν Κωνσταντινούπολιν Ῥώμην νέαν χρηματίζειν ταύτην" "In this year, Constantinos the pious built Constantinoples and called it New Rome"

There are many more such accounts, but it would take me hours to sort them out... The thing is that the name New Rome was certainly prominent and formally used throughout the Byzantine era. It has to have some official origin and to me Constantine is the most plausible one.

[Nathan Ross]

Thanks George. So it seems we have plenty of later literary references to the 'New Rome / Nea Roma' name. The Sozomenus quote implies that 'New Rome Constantinopolis' or something similar was indeed the name given to the new city by Constantine at its first establishment.

But how likely is it that Constantine would actually name the city after himself? There is precedent, albeit rather wayward, for a living emperor naming a city like this - Commodus supposedly trying to rename Rome Commodiana, for example. And all the various Alexandrias, of course, from an earlier age.

So would the old name Byzantium actually be abolished by the foundation of this new city? Or was Constantine's capital still officially called by this name, perhaps with some added titles, until his death in 337?

[Macedon]

To Greeks it was commonplace to name cities after themselves. Alexander did so, Philip II did so before him, Cassander did, Seleucos, Antigonos also, all in their own lifetimes, no question asked. I also know that many cities were named after Roman Emperors (Hadrianopolis, Caesaria, Tiberias etc) but I cannot say whether this was done during their lifetime. A more thorough research would easily show whether this was common for them too.

My guess is that the name Byzantion (also named after the name of its founder "Byzas") was outright abolished, which would be the first thing to do whenever a city was thus "created" and officially renamed to ?. I do not personally have any hard evidence, but I would not dismiss the possibility that Constantine gave it two names, that is both Constantinoples and New Rome instead of a simple New Rome. I would also risk to propose that "New Rome" is at least as old a name as "Constantinoples" is. I do not see the Emperor calling it C. alone and then someone adding to it the NR.

[Lyceum]

Well I wouldn't say it was that common place: you're essentially mixing up two different phenomena there. 1) the foundation of cities by Macedonian aristocrats, predominantly royals and 2) an example of the Greek usage of eponymous heroes, a complex and multi-tiered process often done retroactively as the work of Kowalzig, Calame, Dougherty, Hall etc all variously attest to.

I'd say Constantine's handling of Byzantion is more analogous to the former, due to a) direct interaction and b) the massive effect of the Macedonian model of monarchy on how Roman emperors would often comport themselves around this time c) the precedent in the East.

Normally I'd say that the question is, is there any evidence that it was officially titled as the new Rome? I mean...it was quite obvious that it functioned as such, Roma propria had already began losing utility in comparision to places like Mediolanum and Ravenna in the West and the economic, socio-political, and cultural focus of the empire was already firmly in the south-east. Did Nea Rwma had to be an actual proper name or would a sort of...honorific title suffice as explanation?

Yet Macedon is saying that there are several official examples of usage, as such we ought to take it seriously. Either way that "article" doesn't deserve the name.

It's an interesting question, we know that Constantinople functioned as a capital, I wouldn't be surprised if this was reflected in official nomenclature.

[Nathan Ross]

Did Nea Rwma had to be an actual proper name or would a sort of...honorific title suffice as explanation?

Yes, it does sound rather like an honorific, or the sort of agnomen used perhaps in official panegyric or, as George suggested above, poetry.

But there must have been an actual name for the place as well, and if it was no longer Byzantium and not yet officially Constantinople, what was it? How would the officials at the dedication ceremony in 330 have referred to the place they were dedicating? :-)

One possible other problem with 'New Rome' is that it implies an equality between the old city and the new, whereas, at least at first, Constantinople seems to have been rather junior - with a less privileged senate, for example. Although that doesn't seem to have stopped Constantine from living there or holding his trecennalia there in 336; perhaps its status as official 'imperial residence' (as Nicomedia, Mediolanum, Sirmium and various other places had been before) compensated for its less exalted position as second capital?

[Nathan Ross]

I've just had a rummage on JSTOR, actually, and come across a 1947 essay by Demetrius John Georgacas with the apposite title The Names of Constantinople. Georgacas claims that the title Nova/Nea Roma was an official parallel to others like Alma Roma, Altera Roma and even Roma Constantinopolitana, but that these implied it was a second Rome rather than a replacement, so to speak. The first term, he says, was favoured by Constantine himself.

He also claims that Constantinopolis was indeed the official name of the city from its foundation on November 4 326, when the first stone was laid. He cites references in Coleman (Constantine the Great and Christianity, 1914) and Holsapple (Constantine the Great, 1942) to support this. Which leads me to wonder why a number of other historians seem to believe otherwise!

[Robert Vermaat]

I've just had a rummage on JSTOR, actually, and come across a 1947 essay by Demetrius John Georgacas with the apposite title The Names of Constantinople. Georgacas claims that the title Nova/Nea Roma was an official parallel to others like Alma Roma, Altera Roma and even Roma Constantinopolitana, but that these implied it was a second Rome rather than a replacement, so to speak. The first term, he says, was favoured by Constantine himself.
He also claims that Constantinopolis was indeed the official name of the city from its foundation on November 4 326, when the first stone was laid. He cites references in Coleman (Constantine the Great and Christianity, 1914) and Holsapple (Constantine the Great, 1942) to support this. Which leads me to wonder why a number of other historians seem to believe otherwise!
[..]
So would the old name Byzantium actually be abolished by the foundation of this new city? Or was Constantine's capital still officially called by this name, perhaps with some added titles, until his death in 337?

I think this nicely sums it up: what is a city named and what is it actually called? That Byzantium was 'abolished' as a name would of course only refer to the use of that name in official records. I have a feeling that the old inhabitants as well as a lot of the new ones, kept using that name – how else do we explain that it not only continued, but reappeared in later centuries?

The name ‘New Rome’ may indeed only have ben a title, almost a poetic description, which neither stuck as a common name nor as an official one.
In the end it’s the common man who decides what to call a city. Remember the city ‘Augusta’? or, as we still call it today, London? :wink:

[Lyceum]

Well the use of "Byzantium" outside of historical authors at the time (who we were well aware of its traditions, diachronically speaking) only seemed to occur in the hands of Germanics masquereding as Romans in the West. So not that useful.

As for London, we simply call it "the City" now a days. This also seems to be common throughout the world; Constantinople was often referred to as /i poli/, this might actually be the etymology behind "Istanbul" just as Rome before was also called.

[Macedon]

The term "Nea Rome" in TLG appears about 400 times (!) in official and unofficial contexts. It was certainly used officially and I very often found it as part of religious titles where it appears as "office (episcopos/archepiscopos/patriarch etc) of Constantinople (,) New Rome"

"πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως νέας Ῥώμης"

"Ἀθανάσιος ἐλέω Θεοῦ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης"

"Παρθένιος ἐλέω Θεοῦ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης"

" τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης"

often there is a comma between C and NR but I would not see it as a means of differentiation.

"Φώτιος, ἐπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, νέας Ῥώμης"

(of course I can give you sources guys, but I do not see there is a point at the moment, there are really too many.)

As for the Instanbul question, it is my opinion that because there was a lot of Dorian spoken in the area (they differentiated between Doric and Ionian pronunciation even during the Byzantine times, it is not true that everyone talked "koine Greek"), it would often be "eis tan poli" (tan instead of ten) that would read "is tan poli".

[Ghostmojo]

I guess it's had many names then - founded and referred to by the Greeks as Byzantion - which was Latinized as Byzantium - then Nea Roma (?) which is a new one on me - then of course Constantinople - before ultimately becoming Istanbul.

The New Rome epithet was also applied to Muscovy's prime city of Moscow at various times in its early and very Orthodox history. Rome was obviously the First Rome; Constantinople the Second Rome; and Moscow the so-called Third Rome.